This Does Matter

From The Washington Times
Supreme Court backs eminent domain / Guy Taylor

The Supreme Court yesterday said cities can seize people's homes or businesses to make way for private commercial development such as shopping malls, a far-reaching ruling decried by property rights advocates.

From The Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court's reverse Robin Hoods.

The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.

So, the liberals are for the little guy; they want to protect the little guy from the "too powerful" government, and they want to protect the little guy from big rich corporate America. How interesting that the 5 most liberal justices of the US Supreme Court supported this catastrophic court decision and the conservative justices such as Scalia and Thomas opposed the decision.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

This is a horrendous decision that has far reaching consequences, and should be opposed by the citizens of this country, regardless of political party affiliation, or race, or religious bent.